Kennesaw State University
DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University
Faculty Publications
12-2010
Indigenous Rights and Internal Wars: The Chiapas
Conflict at 15 Years
Stephen D. Collins
Kennesaw State University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs
Part of the Latin American Studies Commons, Military Studies Commons, Peace and Conflict
Studies Commons, and the Political Science Commons
Recommended Citation
Collins, Stephen D. "Indigenous Rights and Internal Wars: The Chiapas Conflict at 15 Years." The Social Science Journal 47.4 (2010)
773-788.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty
Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Indigenous Rights and Internal Wars:
The Chiapas Conflict at Fifteen Years
Stephen D. Collins
Department of Political Science and International Affairs
Kennesaw State University
Kennesaw, GA 30144
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This article examines the origins and outcomes of the indigenous-based Zapatista
rebellion launched fifteen years ago in Chiapas, Mexico. The precursors responsible for
the resistance movement are assessed, as well as the proximate events which convinced
the indigenous communities to embrace a militarized approach. International relations
conflict theory is plumbed for explanations of the conflict and for conflict resolution
strategies relevant to this particular event. This study finds that the conflict in Chiapas
was the consequence of two antecedent conditions – systematic human rights abuses and
extreme material deprivation; and two proximate factors – NAFTA ratification and
pending revisions to communal land laws. The article also explains how violence
mitigation was subsequently achieved as a result of the behavior of state and non-state
actors.
Introduction
On January 1, 1994, a rebellion erupted in Mexico just hours into the New Year, in the
rural southern state of Chiapas. The rebel Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN)
forces captured four towns, and demanded political and social reforms aimed at
improving the lives of Chiapas’ indigenous population. The heaviest fighting lasted just
eleven days before a cease fire was enacted, at which time the Mexican government
extended an offer to negotiate with the rebels. Still, as many as three-hundred individuals
died in the conflict, and scores more were killed in subsequent years in Chiapas.
This study evaluates the factors which engendered the conflict in Chiapas, and,
employing internal war theory and process-tracing methodology, posits that the Zapatista
rebellion resulted from a set of oppressive antecedent conditions and threatening
proximate variables. The antecedent variables are represented by the generations of abuse
and oppression suffered by Chiapan indigenous communities, and the failure of the
Mexican government in providing for adequate living standards in the region. These
fundamental issues created an atmosphere of hostility and mistrust, motivating Chiapan
peasants to organize an armed opposition group -- the Zapatistas. The direct, proximate
factors which brought the Zapatistas out of the jungle to openly confront the Mexican
government are twofold: the enactment of NAFTA, and the government’s decision to
alter communal land laws. Both of these proximate events were perceived as colossal
threats to the survival of Chiapas’ indigenous communities.
This study turns now to a more comprehensive examination of the antecedent
conditions which fostered the conflict, before exploring the proximate causes of the
insurrection. The article will then consider the utility of international relations conflict
theory in providing explanations for the Zapatista rebellion and for useful resolution
strategies for the conflict. Finally, this work will examine the factors which have led to
the mitigation of violence in Chiapas.
Antecedents to Rebellion
Sentiments of alienation, abuse, and marginalization have been present in the
indigenous communities of Chiapas for centuries - extending back to the sixteenth
century when the Spanish conquistadors imposed a feudalistic socio-political system in
rural Mexico. Under the system of encomienda, the indigenous population was forced
2
into slavery under the rule of the landowning finqueros who operated massive plantations
(Ross 1995:68). This system was common in Spanish America before the wave of
nineteenth century independence movements destroyed it. However, Chiapan peasants
never witnessed the massive changes that other Mexicans benefited from, especially the
process of land redistribution. After the Mexican revolution of 1910-1919, a program of
land distribution was enacted, as the Reparto provided Mexican peasants with those lands
upon which they labored. However, the Reparto was never implemented in Chiapas, as
local power brokers convinced Mexican federal authorities to exempt Chiapan estates
from distribution (Ross 1995:69).
The reformist elements of the 1917 Constitution were never enacted by local leaders in
Chiapas. Article 27 of the constitution represented a pivotal reform, as it provided for the
dissolution and distribution of large estates, and also mandated an “equitable distribution
of the public wealth.” Neither of these elements had been achieved by 1994 (Reding
1994:13). Some land was provided to Chiapan peasants, yet the property granted to the
indigenous was the poorest available, including mountainside lots so steep the peasants
needed to tie themselves to trees just to plow their land (Ross 1995:70). Thus, the
machinations of the local land barons, aimed at denying the Chiapan peasant community
the land which had been legally granted to them, left behind a legacy of resentment and
hostility in regard to this central issue of land.
Land distribution is hardly the only material issue in which the Mexican government
exhibited a pattern of neglect. Although Chiapas is a region rich in natural resources, its
people live in conditions that are, by many accounts, the most dire in Mexico.
The following chart depicts the desperate living conditions in Chiapas.
3
Table 1. Living Conditions in Chiapas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Human Development Measure
% of Population
State Ranking
(of 31 Mexican States)
Illiteracy (over 15 years)
30.12
1
Population over 15 not having
62.08
1
Population without electricity
34.92
1
Population without running water
42.09
4
finished primary education
Population living in overcrowded housing
74.07
1
Population making less than twice the
80.08
1
minimum wage
________________________________________________________________
Adapted from Russell (1995:17)
These figures detail the striking levels of relative deprivation present in Chiapas. The
remarkably high percentage of residents without electricity and running water are quite
ironic indices, as Chiapas produces more than half of Mexico’s electric production,
mainly from hydroelectric plants operating off of Chiapas’ abundant water supply (Ross
4
1995:72). In addition, tiny Chiapas supplies nearly a third of the nation’s meat supply, yet
nine out of ten Chiapans eat meat only rarely. Furthermore, nearly half of all Chiapan
farmers earn less than two dollars per day (Ross 1995:71; Wager and Schultz 1995:3).
Despite these abhorrent material conditions, the principle grievance of the Chiapan
indigenous communities and the Zapatista rebels has not been the abject standard of
living, but the inequitable political and social structure that dominates Chiapan life. This
socio-political system, ruled by minority elite landowners and cattlemen, known as
caciques, has been a fixture in Chiapas since the time of the Conquistadors. The same
cadre which prevented the distribution of land to peasants, as mandated in Mexican law,
monopolized economic and political power in Chiapas throughout the twentieth century.
These cacique overlords worked assiduously to not only eliminate and adulterate the land
distribution laws, but also to forcibly usurp lands already in the possession of the
indigenous peasants. In particular, the caciques have been effective in appropriating
(often illegally) the communal lands - known as ejidos - on which many indigenous
communities rely for crop production (Wager and Schultz 1995:4). The cacique barons
use a wide array of tactics to deny the indigenous of land that lawfully belongs to them.
These tactics include armed force, legal manipulation, and political exploitation and
corruption.
The first of these tactics, armed force, is illustrated by the violence committed
between 1965 and 1983 in Venustiano Carranza, as twenty-five Tzotzil Mexicans were
killed by the paramilitary forces of cacique land barons. The dispute involved the
turnover of 3,000 acres of rich farmland that had been granted to the indigenous
community by the Mexican government in 1965. The second tactic, legal manipulation,
has been effectively employed to illegitimately appropriate land from tens of thousands
of indigenous residents of Chiapas. A prime example is represented by the case of the
ejido Belisario Dominguez. This communal property was granted 1,568 hectares of land
in 1940, but legal maneuvers by the initial cacique owners ensured that until 1959, the
5
indigenous who had been provided the grant only received a mere 312 hectares. In 1959,
they finally received another 816 hectares, but the remaining 440 hectares had been
parceled out to another group. Of course, the indigenous peasants do not have the
financial wherewithal to protect their legal rights, while the land barons can quite easily
do so (Russell 1995:5,6).
The final factor - political exploitation - represents the most compelling explanation
for why the Chiapan indigenous community resorted to military force. The perception
within the Indian community that the political system was bankrupt of legitimacy, a
perception fueled by the massive levels of corruption and exploitation that existed in
Chiapas, destroyed all confidence that issues and grievances could be resolved through
appeals to the political system. Indeed. the political system was not perceived as a
dispassionate arbiter of conflict, but rather (and accurately) as system designed to
advance the interest of the non-indigenous caciques, as these elites’ ties to the ruling PRI
party gained them control of political offices, government agencies, the police, and the
courts.
The symbiotic relationship between the leaders of the Chiapan social and business
communities and the leaders of the political system - from the governor of Chiapas to the
local police chiefs – has constituted an oligarchic system bordering on feudal rule (Wager
and Schultz 1995:4). The federal Department of Indigenous Affairs under the Cardenas
administration in the 1930s, admitted that “conditions of virtual slavery exist in Chiapas”
(Russell 1995:5). Even as late as the 1950s, a system simulating apartheid reigned in
Chiapas. Indigenous peasants traveling to market their goods in San Cristobal were
stopped at the city limits, barred from entering the city, and forced to sell their goods to
an intermediary at far below market value. Although indigenous Chiapans are no longer
prohibited from entering the city, this exploitative intermediary practice has continued
(Russell 1995:5). The indigenous are, indeed, commonly perceived as third class citizens
by the cacique elite in Chiapas. An illustration of this sentiment could be found hanging
6
on the wall of the Ocosingo Lion’s Club as late as in 1971. A sign in the club read “In the
Law of the Jungle it is willed that Indians and blackbirds must be killed” (Wager and
Schultz 1995:4).
At times, the most powerful caciques control power directly as government officials or
political officeholders. Absalon Castellanos Dominguez, whose family owns 14 estates
holding 20,000 hectares, served as Chiapas’ governor in the 1980s. As a general in the
Mexican army, Dominguez ordered attacks on indigenous communities, and as governor,
as many as 153 political killings and 327 peasant disappearances occurred under his
watch (Russell: 1995:11) Yet, the caciques do not actually need to hold elected office, as
the authorities work in conjunction with the caciques to advance the interests of these
elites. Amnesty International documented that in June 1993, attacks on five separate
Indian villages were launched by 1,000 state police teamed with cacique landowners
(Russell 1995:12). Indeed the human rights group, the Miguel Agustin Pro Human Rights
Center, alleged in 1993 (Russell 1995:12):
The state of Chiapas is, as it was in 1992, the state with the most violations
of rights of individuals and organizations...The sector most affected was the
Indian peasant. The most frequent violations were assaults and injuries,
followed by arbitrary arrest, threats, torture, and murder.
The ties between the elites and the political authorities have been maintained through
a symbiotic relationship. The caciques provide officials with bribes and votes (Wager and
Schulz 1995:4,8; Reding 1994:13). President Carlos Salinas (1994-2000), though a
reform-minded leader, was unwilling to disrupt the political machine in Chiapas, for it
had delivered nearly 90 percent of the vote to the PRI and Salinas himself in the 1988
elections (Wager and Schulz 1995:8). Those elections were rife with reports of fraud, as
Cardenas, the PAN candidate, was leading in several key districts before the system
“crashed” for a week. Once the ballots were counted Salinas was declared the victor with
just over 50% of the vote. Yet, tens of thousands of ballots cast for Cardenas were found
7
in garbage dumps and floating down waterways (Ross 1995:336). Election fraud was a
systematic practice in Chiapas. Residents of the town of Oxchuc, for example,
complained of being prevented from voting by threat of physical harm. Yet, when the
votes were counted, authorities reported a 100% turnout in Oxchuc, with the PRI
capturing a completely implausible 100 percent of votes. When Zapatista rebels raided
the local PRI office, they discovered a stockpile of marked ballots from an earlier
election (Reding 1994: 17).
The cacique-authority partnership has labored to deter even non-violent forms of
dissent from the Chiapan indigenous community. Articles 129-35 of the state penal code
declares participation in a non-violent, mass protest a “threat to the public order”
punishable by a prison sentence up to four years. Furthermore, offenses against
“historical, national, and state values” have been criminalized (Russell 1995:10). The defacto absence of nonviolent channels for Chiapan peasants, with respect to seeking
justice, expressing dissent, and advocating change, is effectively conveyed by Chiapan
Nicolas Gomez Chavez, who maintains (Russell 1995: 10):
When we try to organize and fight back, they call us agitators and throw
us in jail. Who can we complain to? The cattle ranchers are the mayors,
the judges, and the PRI officials. We have no place to turn.
In addition to the root causes, there were two important proximate catalysts for the
Zapatista revolt. The two factors, the revision of Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution,
and the NAFTA treaty, are interconnected (LaBotz 1995: 25). Article 27, adopted in
1917, mandated a process of land reform, which distributed millions of hectares of land,
providing that today four out of five agricultural workers in Mexico own their own land
(LaBotz 1995:24). Much of this land however was distributed in communal ejido plots.
The Salinas-era revisions to Article 27 allowed for individuals to sell or rent their interest
in the ejido to big-business agro corporations. The reason for the change was to bring
8
Mexican property laws in line with U.S. and Canadian laws, before the implementation of
NAFTA. Many indigenous Chiapans viewed this as a threat to their community, as it
threatened to divide communal land, and viewed the change as a sign that the Mexican
government had turned its back on the peasant farmer (LaBotz 1995:24, 25). NAFTA,
thus, represented a threat, as it necessitated the alteration of Article 27. Chiapan farmers
also feared that NAFTA would flood the market with cheap, machine-harvested corn
from U.S. and Canadian agro-corporations, making it impossible for the Chiapan peasant
farmers to compete, and thus, destroying a way of life that has existed for hundreds of
years (LaBotz 1995:25). The Zapatista leader, Subcomandante Marcos, lamenting what
NAFTA would do the indigenous of Chiapas, postulated that it will be complicit in
“eliminating them, forgetting them, wiping them from the face of the earth”(Landau
1996:3).
War in Chiapas
The Zapatista revolt, therefore, emerged as a consequence of the antecedent conditions
of desperate poverty, government neglect, abuse, and absence of due process; and the
trigger events of NAFTA and the adulteration of land reform. However, the EZLN force
did not form spontaneously overnight. It was a product of native movements starting in
earnest in the 1960s. Maoist organizers visited Chiapas in the late 1960s, working
diligently, but maintaining a low profile, communicating directly with peasants. In the
1970s, the Catholic Church, spreading the message of liberation theology, played an
important role in providing Chiapan peasants with a forum to address pressing social and
political issues. The Church was instrumental in organizing the First Indigenous Congress
in San Cristobal in October 1974, where hundreds of Chiapan Indians addressed these
critical issues (Russell 1995: 32, 33). The 1980s witnessed the rise of labor groups and
other peasant organizations.
9
The precursor to the EZLN, the Emiliano Zapata National Independent Peasant
Alliance (ANCIEZ), made its official debut at a 1992 rally in San Cristobal, where, in
protest of local rule, its members toppled a statute of Spanish conquistador Diego de
Mazariegos. ANCIEZ subsequently went underground in 1993 (Russell 1995:35, 36).
The local government became aware of a guerrilla organization operating in Chiapas after
two deadly ambushes killed four soldiers, and with the discovery of a military training
camp in the jungle. However, Interior Minister, and former Chiapan governor Gonzalez
Garrido, dismissed the report as a fabrication. Some have speculated that the Mexican
government minimized the issue, out of fear that it might jeopardize NAFTA negotiations
(Russell 1995:36, 37).
While the Mexican government was denying their very existence, the Zapatista
National Liberation Army (EZLN) was training for a massive assault. Timed to coincide
with the inauguration of the NAFTA treaty, on January 1, 1994, one-thousand Zapatista
rebels stormed the Chiapan towns of San Cristobal de las Casas, Las Margaritas,
Ocosingo, and Altamirano, and seized control (New York Times 1994; Economist 1994;
Wager and Schultz 1995:1). In San Cristobal, the EZLN’s primary target, the timing of
the raid proved fortuitous, as rebels marched into the highland capital completely
unimpeded. The Zapatistas seized and destroyed land records, and released 230 prisoners,
many of whom were indigenous peasants jailed over land disputes (Russell 1995: 20).
The EZLN quickly released a statement, intended for an international audience, outlining
the group’s grievances and articulating the Zapatista message, which argued (Russell
1995:38):
For many years, dictators have engaged in an undeclared genocidal war
against our people. For this reason, we ask for your participation and
support in our struggle for jobs, land, housing, food, health, education,
independence, liberty, democracy, and justice, and peace. We will not
stop fighting until these basic demands are met and a free and democratic
10
government rules in Mexico.
Subcomandante Marcos also emphasized the role of the North American Free Trade
Agreement as a main casus belli for the revolt, labeling NAFTA, “a death certificate for
the Indian peoples of Mexico, who are disposable for the Government of Carlos Salinas
de Gotari” (New York Times 1994).
While the Zapatistas secured complete control over San Cristobal, in other areas the
group encountered serious resistance. In Ocosingo, 400 rebel troops encountered some 20
to 30 police during their successful attack on the city hall. However, government soldiers
soon arrived and battled with the EZLN, killing 59 Zapatistas; seven soldiers and 27
civilians also died in the battle(New York Times 1994). The EZLN vacated San Cristobal
and launched an attack on the army installation at Rancho Nuevo. The army repelled the
rebel advance, and by the end of the week government forces had expelled the Zapatistas
from all of the towns they had previously occupied. The EZLN force was forced to seek
harbor in the Lancandon jungle (Wager and Schultz 1995:14, 15). Sporadic fighting
would last another five days until the Salinas government called a cease-fire on January
12 (Wager and Schultz 1995:14, 15).
Estimates of the death toll after eleven days of warfare vary between 159 and 300
fatalities (Russell 1995: 23). Human rights violations were committed by both sides of
the conflict. However, the Mexican army was widely portrayed as the principle
transgressor (Conger 1994: 121; Economist 1994). Human Rights Watch documented
summary executions carried out by the Mexican army forces, as well as arbitrary
detentions, and cited many complaints of torture at the hands of authorities (Conger 1994:
121, 122). The excessive and indiscriminate use of force by the Mexican Army (at least
in the early phases of the conflict) received considerable press, including reports of aerial
bombing and machine gun strafing of villages, attacks on journalists, and an allegedly
unprovoked attack on a minibus with four civilians, including a six year old girl
(Economist 1994; Conger 1994:122; Ross 1995: 97). The Zapatistas committed crimes of
11
their own including hostage taking, destruction of property, and the murder of a noncombatant in Ocosingo. In addition there were reports of the EZLN forcing locals into
combat (Conger 1994:123).
Despite the fact that the Mexican army, with 14,000 troops in the combat zone, had
the overwhelmed Zapatistas on the run, Salinas ordered a unilateral cease-fire. The
Mexican government moved quickly to pacify the situation. Salinas fired negotiator
Patrocinio Gonzalez, who was viewed as inept, and, as a former governor of Chiapas,
complicit in the indemnities listed by the Zapatistas. The moderate Manuel Camacho
Solis was appointed as chief negotiator, the Chiapan governor Elmer Setzer resigned, and
the Mexican Congress passed on January 19, an amnesty decree (Wager and Schultz
1994:15; Russell 1994:61). The post bellum magnanimity of the government was widely
perceived as a result of intense international condemnation (Wager and Schulz 1994: 15,
16; Economist 1994).
Negotiations began in earnest on February 22 at the Cathedral of San Cristobal.
Within ten days, an accord had been reached, with the government addressing a
comprehensive range of issues (Russell 1994: 63-68). The accord was structured in a
grievance and response form, with the government response following the Zapatista
demand:
-
Demand 1: Free and democratic elections
-
Government Response: This demand will be fulfilled by legislative changes
enacted by the national congress.
-
Demand 2: The resignation of President Salinas and of governors who were
fraudulently elected.
-
Government Response: This demand will not be granted, although problems
of election fraud will be addressed in a special congressional session on
political reform.
12
-
Demand 6: Redirection of the electricity generated in Chiapas to communities
in the state, and local investment of income from the sale of Chiapan oil.
-
Government Response: The government will double the rate of electrification
in rural areas.
-
Demand 11: Rural Housing
-
Government Response: Solidarity will draft a rural-housing program within
90 days, and construction will begin in the second half of 1994.
-
Demand 16: Indian Autonomy
-
Government Response: New municipalities will be created and new laws
passed to provide autonomy.
Thirty-four demands were addressed, providing for political reform, public welfare,
and designs for indigenous autonomy (Russell: 1994: 64-68). Most observers concluded
that the compromises offered by the government were generous, especially in light of the
relative weakness of the EZLN. Therefore it was widely expected that the ruling
Zapatista counsel, the CCRI, would accept the accord (Russell: 1994: 64-68). The EZLN
decision, announced on April 22, surprised many. The Zapatistas rejected the accord,
stating it had taken the accord to their people, and that 98 percent of the community had
voted to reject the offer. The reason provided for repudiating the offer was that it could
not guarantee all Mexicans, democracy, and justice (Russell: 1994: 64-68). Thus, the
Zapatistas, a small, poorly armed, and overpowered local rebel group - and the clear
military losers in the conflict - had been offered considerable government concessions
and had rejected the offer, citing the failure of the government to offer a sweeping
overhaul of the national political system. This response - quite uncharacteristic of typical
regional rebel groups, which are usually concerned with more parochial interests - is
illustrative of the sui generis nature of the Zapatistas themselves.
The Zapatistas are indeed unique as a rebel army in several ways. First, the ostensible
13
accountability of the group to local communities is atypical of insurgent groups. Many
rebel army champion populist causes, yet most eschew public accountability. The
Zapatistas claim to subordinate themselves to a community council, the Clandestine
Indian Revolutionary Committee (CCRI), comprised of representatives from four
different Indian groups: the Chol, the Tojolabal, the Tzeltal, and the Tzotzil. While it has
become clear that Subcomandante Marcos is not indigenous, the majority of Zapatista
troops are indigenous Chiapans (Russell 1995:42, 43). It was the CCRI, in fact, that sat at
the negotiating table with the government (Marcos attended as a member of the CCRI
General Counsel), and the CCRI then translated the agreement into the four member
languages, and distributed the accord to more than 1,000 Indian communities (Russell
1994: 62, 70; Wager and Schultz 1994:12).
Additionally, the goals of the Zapatistas are unique in that the military goals of the
group are quite modest, yet their political demands are highly ambitious. The Zapatistas
possess no delusions about capturing Mexico City. In fact, they insist on autonomy, not
on an independent homeland. Marcos emphasized to a reporter, “Don’t think we were
fantasizing about seizing power and then becoming a great president or emulating Castro
or a Lenin or whatever. We were thinking that at least we were going to help the
indigenous people transform their lives in a radical and irreversible way so that the past
would not return” (Landau 1996). The Zapatistas do not present their armed force as a
threat to the Mexican government, yet, their political demands have included the
resignation of President Zedillo and other elected officials, the revision of NAFTA, and
significant changes to the system of centralized power in Mexico.
The political sophistication of the Zapatistas constitutes another unique element of the
group. Without advanced training or weaponry, the EZLN employed stealth, technology,
and rhetoric to counterbalance the military superiority of the Mexican army. The New
Year’s assault was launched with such surprise, that the Zapatistas were able to capture
San Cristobal, their prime target, without firing a bullet. They understood that their thin
14
ranks (some 3,000 to 4,000 troops) and modest weaponry would be insufficient to hold
San Cristobal, thus they quickly released a statement to the press articulating their
grievances and their cause (Rochlin 1997:64; Russell 1995:38). This communication was
written in both Spanish and in English, and released by facsimile to several media
sources (Russell 1995:38). The savvy of the Zapatistas has enabled them to achieve
recognition of their grievances, and support for their objectives, in far greater relation to
their actual size or power.
While the Zapatistas have expressed outsized demands, and display certain radical
characteristics, they are guided by rational leadership demonstrating a desire for
individual and group preservation. Although the rebels rejected the government offer,
they announced that they would adhere to the cease-fire. It was quite evident that the
rebel force was badly damaged and was in no position to pose a serious challenge to the
Mexican army at the time.
The government’s chief negotiator, Camacho Solis, noted that while the accords failed
to resolve the conflict, their principle goal, stopping the violence, had been achieved, and
that organizational bodies were already being formed to address the issues raised by the
rebels (Russell 1995:76, 77). This stalemated state of affairs has endured in Chiapas,
more or less, for the last fifteen years. And while there is reason to believe that material
conditions in Chiapas may improve, violence and tension have yet to completely
dissipate from this southern Mexican state. The hopeful signs of economic progress are
manifest in an apparent increased resolve of the Mexican government to address the
abhorrent living conditions in Chiapas. In a six-month period after the negotiations in San
Cristobal, the Mexican government provided over $220 million in construction and social
spending; 44 percent more than had been budgeted (Wager and Schultz 1995: 29).
Yet, despite attempts to redress the material deficiencies, the credibility gap remained,
as the Zedillo administration, which replaced Salinas, vacillated between upholding the
cease fire and flooding Zapatista strongholds with troops, and as political and human
15
rights abuses continue to be ignored by the political establishment (LA Times 1998; Time
1998; Wager and Schultz 1995:34, 35). Zedillo’s policy shifts with respect to the Chiapan
rebels appeared to be highly influenced by his perception of the prevailing public opinion
on the issue. After PRI supporters rioted over government concessions to peasants in the
state of Tabasco, and as the Mexican economy continued to slump, on February 10, 1995,
Zedillo ordered a military offensive against the Zapatistas. Yet he did an about face just
four days later, and ordered a halt to the military operation, after the PRI suffered major
defeats in local elections in Guadalajara and Jalisco, and as internal and international
criticism of the offensive mounted (Wager and Schulz 1995: 34, 35).
Events in 1997 reinforced the credibility gap among indigenous Chiapans with respect
to the government’s commitment to justice and conflict resolution. On December 22,
1997, members of the paramilitary unit, Paz y Justicia, descended upon the town of
Acteal, firing their weapons indiscriminately, killing 45 people. One witness noticed that
some of the gunmen were outfitted in police uniforms, with only the insignia removed.
Several accounts noted that local police refused to respond to the attack, and state
officials acknowledged that midway through the massacre, local police reported the town
as peaceful (Jane’s Intelligence Review 1998a). Violent paramilitary units, such as Paz y
Justicia, had indeed been fostered in the 1990s by PRI officials and the military. (Burke
2003).
Although President Zedillo’s government moved swiftly and aggressively to punish
the perpetrators of the massacre, arresting 40 individuals, including the mayor of Acteal,
the violence had yet to cease (Time 1998). Zedillo once again ordered troops to Chiapas,
in June 1998, this time to reassert government authority in villages loyal to the Zapatistas,
and in which local governing bodies had been established. Eight indigenous peasants and
two police officers died as a result of the operation (New York Times 1998). The human
rights organization, the Fray Bartolome Rights Center, maintained that at least 57
individuals perished in political violence between the Acteal massacre in December 1997
16
and September 1998. The group argued that those sympathetic to the Zapatistas were
commonly detained and tortured by police or army personnel (Jane’s Intelligence Review
1998b).
In addition to the conflict between the peasant Zapatista forces and the Mexican army,
another conflict developed between cacique landowners and the increasingly confident
indigenous populace, intent on seizing land from the elites. By June 1994 peasant groups
had seized 100,000 hectares of land from cattle ranchers, coffee planters, and other large
landowners (Russell 1995:72). Landowners protested by blocking highways, and
threatened to hire gunmen to protect their assets. The government stepped in to appease
both groups by distributing more land to Indian peasants, and by compensating the elite
landowners (Russell 1995:72,73). Land has actually diminished as an issue, now that
more peasants own their own plots, as one-half million acres have been added - through
distributions and seizures - to Chiapan peasants (Rus, Castillo, and Mattiace 2003:197;
Los Angeles Times 1998).
Tension eased considerably in Chiapas between Zapatista supporters and the federal
government after the historic victory of opposition candidate Vicente Fox in Mexico’s
2000 presidential election. While Fox’s promise to solve the Chiapas conflict “in 15
minutes” failed to materialize, he did advance reconciliation by enacting several of the
Zapatistas demands, including the closure of numerous military bases in Chiapas, and the
release of Zapatista prisoners (Burke 2003). Congress received the Zapatistas leadership
in Mexico City in 2001, and soon passed an indigenous rights law (SiPaz 2009). The
EZLN announced in 2001 that it will renounce violence, and subsequently dismantled
checkpoints and tolls in Chiapas (Si Paz 2009). Although tension has abated and
indigenous access to arable land has improved, many of the antecedent causes of the
conflict remain, and thus, so do the prospects for a renewal of conflict. Chiapas remains
the most impoverished state in Mexico. The Zapatistas, furthermore, never formally
accepted the indigenous rights law, maintaining that it did not fulfill the promises made
17
in the San Andres Accords of 1996 (Burke 2003). Finally, reports of the return of
government supported anti-Zapatista/anti-indigenous paramilitaries, if substantiated,
could possibly lead to another armed response by the indigenous community (Cruz
2008).
The Chiapas Conflict and Internal War Theory
Causes of Internal War
Can the academic literature on internal war be utilized to explain the Chiapas conflict?
Additionally, does the internal war corpus offer useful ideas for bringing an end to such
conflicts? Much of the literature on the causes of internal war concentrates on the issue of
weak states as the cause of internal war. Mohammed Ayoob (1998: 38, 45-49) argues that
the reason for the vast majority of internal wars having occurred in the developing states
of the southern hemisphere, resides in the fact that those states are often newly
constructed and thus have weak governments and political institutions which cannot
control violence. As Mexico is a well established state (although not a well established
democracy) with at least a moderately strong central government, Ayoob’s theory has
little relevance to the situation in Chiapas. Likewise the ideas of Robert Jervis, Barry
Posen, and Jack Snyder who emphasize the “security dilemma”, where a collapse of
authority ignites insecurities, militarism and finally violence, is inapplicable to the
Zapatista revolt, as a power vacuum is not extant in Mexico (Brown 1996:119; Snyder
and Jervis 1999:1-5).
The writings of Ted Gurr and Michael Brown contain ideas which do possess a
degree of explanatory power in relation to Chiapas. Ted Gurr (1994: 350) illustrates the
importance of ethnicity as a factor in internal conflict, as the overwhelming percentage of
internal wars today posses some ethnic component. Among the three classifications he
lists for ethnopolitical conflict, “indigenous rights” accurately represents the conflict in
18
Chiapas. Gurr (1994: 354) argues that the common identity of these conflicts is the desire
of the indigenous group for autonomy in order to protect their land and culture; objectives
explicitly expressed by the Zapatistas. While Gurr (1994: 358) asserts that “material
inequalities” are secondary to political transitions as causes of ethnopolitical conflict, in
indigenous rights conflicts, the material inequalities variable possesses stronger
significance, as indigenous peoples are more likely to be subjects of economic
discrimination than ethnonationalists (e.g. the Basques in Spain, Tamils in Sri Lanka),
and to express economic rights as a primary grievance. Indeed economic issues, such as
land and trade agreements, are cardinal grievances of the Chiapan indigenous
community. Gurr (1994:354) notes that conflicts involving indigenous rights issues are
less deadly than ethnopolitical conflicts and are also becoming scarcer. He postulates that
this reduction in violent conflict from indigenous groups, may be the result of material
gains that indigenous groups have achieved as a result of low-intensity conflict with
governments (Gurr 1994:359).
Michael Brown’s (1996) compilation of the preconditions of internal conflict may be
helpful in explaining the antecedent causes of the conflict in Chiapas. First, deficits of
equity and legitimacy become salient issues when ethnic groups perceive that they have
been deprived representation in political bodies and institutions, such as the courts and
the police. Second, Brown emphasizes discrimination in economic affairs and resources
as a factor which can foster violence. Third, repression of cultural values can inspire
violent designs (Brown 1996:16-21). Among Brown’s list are proximate factors as well,
including economic insecurities and the presence of ambitious goals and contentious
strategies on the part of dissident movements (Brown 1996: 18, 23, 576-578). Certainly
the EZLN articulated ambitious demands such as the resignation of Mexico’s sitting
president, and a sweeping reconfiguration of the local and national political system.
Similarly, with respect to rising economic insecurity, the revision of Article 27 by the
federal government, and the enactment of the NAFTA treaty, created considerable
19
anxiety among peasant Chiapans, and was listed explicitly by the Zapatistas as a primary
reason for the revolt.
Theories of Conflict Resolution
As the internal war literature has been mined for causal explanations of the conflict in
Chiapas, likewise we can leverage the corpus to find strategies for conflict resolution.
Chaim Kaufman (1998:1, 2) suggests that separation of contentious groups and division
of territory may be the only viable solution to ending certain internal wars. While
Kaufmann provides a compelling argument, his remedies are not relevant to the situation
in Chiapas, as the Zapatista rebels argue for autonomy, not independence. Stephen
Stedman (1996:374-376) asserts that the international community should not intervene in
civil wars unless the participants are willing to negotiate, and if the international
community possesses the resolve to buttress their words with a robust material and
military commitment. While Stedman’s central argument possesses some merit, it is not
germane to Chiapas, as the cease-fire has held and the Mexican government would not
otherwise accept external military intervention. Roy Licklider (1993:681-687) has
analyzed the effectiveness of negotiations and, alternatively, military victories as a means
to end civil war. This study, however, is less applicable to Chiapas as Licklider’s research
examines large-scale civil wars; indeed, Licklider’s operationalization for internal war
excludes the relatively low level violence exhibited in Chiapas (Licklider 1993:682).
While the majority of the literature on internal conflict resolution appears to have little
relevance for Chiapas, two works in particular possess promise with respect to finding
solutions to conflicts similar to Chiapas. Ted Gurr’s (1994) work on ethnopolitical
conflict is germane and constructive to finding conflict resolution solutions in Chiapas.
Gurr suggests that the key to solving communal based discord is understanding what
makes these conflicts so resistant to resolution. Gurr emphasizes that material conditions
are not the only, or perhaps even the most important, issue that needs to be addressed.
20
Cultural and status concerns are often central matters that require consideration. Gurr
(1994:365-366) suggests that creative arrangements of autonomy, integration, and
pluralism can help to stem violent manifestations of ethnic grievances, and have in the
Western democracies produced a one-third reduction in ethnopolitical violence. Further,
he argues that early intervention in ethnopolitical issues can prevent the escalation of
violence and points to the eagerness of the Mexican government’s response in Chiapas as
an example of the efficacy of early intervention (1994:365-366).
However, many analysts would demur with Gurr’s sanguine appraisal of the Mexican
response, as signs of discontent and guerrilla activity were evident years before the
Zapatista revolt, and as the Mexican government, instead of adopting a proactive
approach, rather, ignored the simmering conflict. Gurr (1994) posits that the international
community has a role to play in clarifying international law on the rights of minority
groups, in monitoring their treatment, and, in certain cases, intervening on their behalf.
Although direct external intervention in the Chiapas conflict would have been assertively
countered by the Mexican government, indirect intervention in the form of international
diplomatic pressure did appear to temper the actions of the Zedillo government.
I. William Zartman offers several strategies for successfully negotiating a resolution to
ethnic/indigenous-based internal conflict. He discusses numerous options for dividing
power, including regional autonomy, which has been demanded by the Zapatistas, and
upon which the Mexican government equivocates (Zartman 1991:524-527; Los Angeles
Times 1998). Zartman also posits, however, that granting autonomy is not enough; that if
a primary grievance is material in nature, the government must ensure that the indigenous
communities receive “their regular and equitable supply from the central storehouse”
(Zartman 1991:527). Zartman also emphasizes the role mediators can play in
negotiations. Noting that outside intervention is often perceived as meddling, Zartman
(1991:530-532) suggests the creation of domestic agencies to act as “marriage
21
counselors” in ethnic disputes. Furthermore he suggests mediation strategies such as
“positioning” whereby the mediator develops relationship with all pertinent ethnic
contacts, fostering discussion not only at the official level, but unofficial dialogue, and
the use of officieux - whereby well-connected private citizens are tapped to leverage their
relationships with the parties to encourage discussion and promote understanding
(Zartman 1991:530-532). In the case of the Chiapas conflict, the establishment of a
mediation agency, suggested by Zartman, would require the agency to have considerable
independence; otherwise, Chiapans’ confidence in the objectivity of the mediator would
be jeopardized.
The writings of Michael Brown and Ted Gurr help to elucidate the causes of
indigenous-rights based civil conflict, and Gurr and I. William Zartman provide guidance
with respect to the options available toward resolving these conflicts. This study now
turns to an often overlooked causal variable, devolution. Additionally, the impact of
moderation as a tactical instrument is assessed.
The Role of Devolution
Earlier, material deprivation and human rights abuses were identified as antecedent
causes, and the enactment of NAFTA and revisions to communal land law were posited
as proximate causes of the Chiapas conflict. Devolution, however, represents another
causal variable in the Chiapas conflict; a variable which has received very little scrutiny.
Mexico’s system of devolution (decentralization of power) represents an important
explanation for the conflict, as malevolent and/or corrupt leaders at the state and local
level have been most directly responsible for the abuses visited upon Chiapas’ indigenous
population.
Most assuredly, Mexico City exhibited a pattern of negligent governance by failing to
supervise and enforce federal law. The principal role of local authorities in the abuse and
marginalization of the indigenous population suggests, however, that perhaps an
22
excessive amount of attention has been paid in the mass media to central government
policy and funding. Material conditions have often been noted as an underlying cause of
the rebellion. Nonetheless, Stephen Wager and Donald Schulz point out that in the five
years prior to the uprising, the Salinas government increased federal spending in Chiapas
by one-thousand percent (Wager and Schultz 1995:7). Chiapas received, in fact, a greater
share of funds from the anti-poverty “Solidarity” program than any other state
(Economist 1994). These monies, however, have often been funneled into the coffers of
local power brokers (Wager and Schulz 1995:7). Furthermore, those funds that are
actually directed to development ventures often have little impact as they are squandered
on ill-conceived and poorly executed projects.
The violence that persisted in Chiapas after the cease-fire was attributed to the actions
of paramilitary units, which were also tied to local police units and the local PRI elite.
Conversely, the Zedillo administration aggressively prosecuted the paramilitaries
involved in the 1997 Acteal massacre (New York Times 1998). Greater scrutiny might be
applied, therefore, to local authorities and their use and abuse of power. The typical
reaction of outside observers to human rights abuses in foreign states is to castigate the
most visible component of the offending state - the central government. While central
government officials may be directly complicit in many episodes of human rights abuses
globally, in other cases local leadership may be more directly responsible for abuses. The
latter may be particularly evident in federal states, such as Mexico. Indeed this dynamic
was vividly exhibited in another federal state - the United States - as witnessed by the
human rights abuses visited upon African-Americans by local authorities in the South,
prior to and during the 1960s civil rights era. These abuses occurred despite the fact that
they ran largely counter to the laws and explicit mandates of the national government.
23
Moderation (Jus in Bello)
Certainly, central government authorities should be held accountable for neglecting
their responsibilities in supervising the actions of local officials, especially in relation to
minority groups. Also, in the case of Mexico, the aggressive behavior of the federal army
in 1994, and subsequent allegations of army abuse, demonstrates that the Mexican
government was complicit in abuses in Chiapas - especially in the midst of the conflict
(Jane’s Intelligence Review 1998b). However, it is also important to note the positive
influence that a relatively reasonable central government can play in confrontations that
arise out of local dynamics. In this vein, we should emphasize the relative moderation
exhibited by the Mexican government. Though significant human rights violations were
indeed committed, as compared to the counterinsurgency responses waged by many other
governments in recent years, Mexico City exercised considerable restraint in its
confrontation with armed belligerents.
Though human rights violations were also committed by the rebels, the moderation of
the Zapatistas should be noted as well. Not only did the Zapatistas accept and adhere to a
cease fire only weeks into their campaign, they demonstrated significant tactical restraint
during the uprising. Although combatants should not receive outsized approbation simply
for eschewing heinous deeds, the relative jus in bello restraint exhibited by both sides
hints at a factor which may discourage internal conflicts from intensifying.
Conclusions
The Chiapas revolt was a traumatic event for Mexico. It resulted in a significant loss
of life, and caused a crisis of confidence in Mexico both from within the country and
from the international community. The crisis indeed threatened to derail Mexico’s ascent
into the ranks of the advanced industrial economies. Mexico has, however, benefited in
certain ways from the revolt. The Zapatista challenge played an important causal role in
subsequent systemic reforms within Mexico’s political system, and was a catalyst for
24
material improvements for indigenous peasants in Chiapas, who have benefited from land
grants, increased social spending, and greater autonomy. Acute poverty, absences of due
process, and intermittent episodes of intimidation and violence still afflict Chiapas, and
therefore, although the kinetic phase of the conflict is over, the preconditions for conflict
remain. Still, the conflict in Chiapas can be viewed as a model illustrating the benefits to
be gained - by rebel and government forces – from restraint, negotiation, and concession.
In particular, the Zapatistas’ emphasis on a political communications strategy and their
novel use of communications technology may suggest a new paradigm for waging
resistance movements. Tactical moderation and skillful communication may yield greater
returns for resistance movements than the indiscriminate and exclusive use of armed
force.
About the Author
Stephen D. Collins is Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at
Kennesaw State University. His research focuses on democratization, conflict resolution,
and economic statecraft. His most recent works include, "Can America Finance
Freedom? Assessing U.S. Democracy Promotion via Economic Statecraft," Foreign
Policy Analysis (2009), and “The Efficacy of Economic Sanctions,” The New England
Journal of Political Science (2009).
_______________________________________________________________________
References
Ayoob, Mohammed. 1998. Subaltern Realism: International Relations Theory Meets the
Third World. In International Relations Theory and the Third World, Stephanie Neuman,
ed., New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Brown, Michael E., ed. 1996. The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burke, Garance. 2003. Mexico: The Deadly Standoff. PBS Frontline/World, August.
Available from http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/mexico0803/1.html (accessed
August 28, 2009.)
Cleaver, Harry M. Jr. 1998. The Zapatista Effect: The Internet and the Rise of an
Alternative Political Fabric, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 51, No. 2.
25
Collier, George A. 2005. Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas. New
York: Food First Books.
Conger, Lucy. 1994. Mexico: Zapatista Thunder, Current History, Vol. 93, No. 581.
Cruz, Orion. 2008. The Future of Mexico’s EZLN, Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
November 20, 2008. Available from http://www.coha.org/the-future-of-the-ezln/
(accessed September 15, 2009).
Economist. 1994a. January 8.
Economist, 1994b. January 22.
Gurr, Ted. 1994. Peoples Against States: Ethnopolitical Conflict and the Changing World
System, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3.
Human Rights Watch (Americas). 1994. Human Rights and the Chiapas Rebellion,
Current History, Vol. 93, No. 581.
Jane’s Intelligence Review. 1998a. February 1.
Jane’s Intelligence Review. 1998b. October 1.
Kaufman, Chaim. 1998. When All Else Fails: Separation as a Remedy for Ethnic
Conflicts, Ethnic Partitions and Population Transfers in the Twentieth Century,
International Security, Vol. 23, No. 2.
La Botz, Dan. 1995. Democracy in Mexico - Peasant Rebellion and Political Reform.
Boston: South End Press.
Landau, Saul. 1996. In the Jungle with Marcos, The Progressive, March.
Los Angeles Times. 1998. Local Power Plays Fuel Tension in Chiapas, October 1.
Licklider, Roy. 1993. The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 19451993, American Political Science Review, Vol. 89, No. 3.
New York Times. 1994. Mexican Troops Battling Rebels; Toll at Least 57, January 3.
Posen, Barry. 1993. “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict,” in Michael Brown, ed.,
Ethnic Conflict and International Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Reding, Andrew. 1994. Chiapas is Mexico: The Imperative of Political Reform, World
Policy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1.
Reding, Andrew. 1997. Facing Political Reality in Mexico, Washington Quarterly,
26
Autumn 1997.
Rochlin, James F. 1997. Redefining Mexican Security - Society, State, and Region Under
NAFTA. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Ross, John. 1995. Rebellion From the Roots - Indian Uprising in Chiapas. Monroe, ME:
Common Courage Press.
Rus, Jan, Rosaiva Aida Hernandez Castillo, and Shannon L. Mattaice ed. 2003. Mayan
Lives, Mayan Utopias. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Russell, Philip L. 1995. The Chiapas Rebellion. Austin, TX: Mexico Resource Center.
Snyder, Jack and Robert Jervis. 1999. “Civil War and the Security Dilemma,” in Barbara
F. Walter and Jack Snyder, eds., Civil Wars, Insecurity, and Intervention. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Stedman, Stephen John. 1996. “Negotiation and Mediation in Internal Conflict,” in
Michael Brown, ed., The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Time. 1998. Laws of the Jungle. January 12.
Wager, Stephen J., and Donald E. Schulz. 1995. Civil-Military Relations in Mexico - The
Zapatista Revolt and its Implications, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World
Affairs, 37(1).
Zartman, I. William. 1991. Negotiations and Prenegotiations in Ethnic Conflict: The
Beginning, The Middle, and The Ends,” in Joseph V. Montville, ed., Conflict and
Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. New York: Lexington Books.
27